I'm a writer, so I hear more complaints, attacks, and
laments about book reviews than most. I am well aware that some writers pay for
reviews. I am VERY cognizant of the fact that writers "trade"
reviews because people email me about it all the time. I don't buy reviews, and
I don't "trade" them. Authors who want to trade reviews don't want to trade
honest reviews (usually), they want you to give their book five stars while snagging five more for yourself. I am also PAINFULLY aware that readers don't trust book
reviews anymore - especially if that book was published by an indie writer or a
small press. But let's get real here - WE ALL BROKE THE REVIEW SYSTEM!
"Five stars" should be reserved for master works and people who have
done LOTS of pushups in the mud.
I have written several novels which you can find (along with
some short pieces and collections/collaborations) HERE. Take a look if you like. I have a
bunch of five star reviews, and I don't deserve ANY of them. Allow me to
explain.
I like the things I write. I would even go so far as to say
I think I'm pretty good - I have been writing for twenty years. I especially like Joe Café, even though my other
novels sell better. So, I think I've written some good books. And by good
books, I mean THREE or FOUR star books.
Here's the problem, and I have been guilty of it, too. Let's
break it down.
You read a book and, if you're lucky, it resonates with you
and you're psyched to tell the world how dope it is. So, you go on Amazon or
Goodreads (if you're brave and can understand how the hell it works) and you throw
up a five star review. The author, of course, shares the review because we need
to EAT. But there's a problem.
I appreciate every review I get, one star or five. OK, I
don't care much for the "one star" ones that offer no insight besides
"too much profanity," but I'm actually STOKED when I get a three or
four star review vs. a five star review. Too many five star reviews looks shady, and I'm not shady. I'm actually annoyingly ethical about this kind of stuff -
or I try to be. You want to give a book you like as many stars as possible, and
that makes sense. But it's a lie. Here's why.
I've left five stars for books that I now wish I
hadn't. Not because I don't think they are good books - I wouldn't have given
them glowing reviews if I didn't, but because book reviews are a system based
upon perceived consistency. Or they should be. If someone gives Joe Café a
five star review, that's really nice. It's also really WRONG. If my novel gets
five stars, what are you going to give Steinbeck for East of Eden? FIVE STARS
IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS. So, you give me a five star review, how many stars are
you going to give The Count of Monte Cristo? Because, while I like every novel
I've written, I have never written a novel as good as To Kill a Mockingbird (to name one of many).
Now, it get's tricky because I have also never written a
novel anything like To Kill a Mockingbird. But the differences in subject,
tone, "social value", etc. don't change the fact that the review system is
supposed to judge a book on its merits as a piece of writing. It is supposed
to be an honest and objective appraisal of literary merit. Too often, this doesn't happen, even with "official book reviewers."
Here's a good example. Not too long ago, I read and reviewed
Sliding Past Vertical by Laurie Boris. It's a great book - one of the best
novels I've read recently. Laurie is also a friend of mine. I made it clear
that I don't give "special" reviews to people I know. And I don't. It's an
awesome book, and I would have loved it just as much if someone else had written
it. You should read it. That doesn't change the fact that it's not a five star book. Neither are
any of mine. If Laurie and I get five stars, what the hell does Shakespeare
deserve? A galaxy of stars?
Look, you finish reading a book and you're psyched on it - you want
to tell the world! So, you do. With five big ol' stars. I did Laurie a disservice (it
wasn't intentional), I loved the book, but I should have given
more thought to how her book exists within the context of literary history. And
then there's an even trickier issue - there is a part of all of us that roots
for the underdog, so we are more likely to give five stars to a relatively
unknown author than an established or long dead and lauded author even though that hurts them, really, making it appear as though they ARE shady review traders. We want to help the 'little guy'. Except...
Except when we want to kneecap a struggling writer. I don't
ever want to do that. And, fortunately, it hasn't happened to me (at least not
in stars, usually it's smack talk behind my back), but I know excellent writers
with books that deserve four stars that get a bunch of one star reviews that
are created solely from spite and jealousy. Those are even less helpful than
the five star reviews that should have been 3 stars and a detailed review about
WHY IT WAS SO GOOD IT DESERVED THREE STARS.
We're all learning. This is a new and exciting time for
writing and writers (and readers), but we shouldn't (writers OR readers)
complain about the abundance of unwarranted five star reviews or the
proliferation of "spite reviews" because we all allowed it to happen. If I get a
five star review, I immediately put that bad boy on Facebook, even if I
don't want to, because I NEED TO EAT. Part of me wishes it was a four star
review because I KNOW I'm not in the same league as Michael Chabon (for example). Someday, maybe,
but not right now. He certainly has far MORE reviews than me, but our batting
average is similar if you just look at the stars. And that's not fair.
I'm not looking to blame anyone. I am willing to shoulder my
share of the blame, as I said (good intentions can lead us in the wrong
direction, that's called being human). But I can't sit idly by while people
assume that an underdog writer with a lot of five star reviews "just got
their friends and family to write reviews or paid for them in 'some way'."
Sure, some of my friends and family read my stuff. And some of them leave
reviews. And they're probably too generous. Not always. And not many of my
friends or family members read what I write, frankly.
Five star reviews should go to books that deserve them. None
of my books do. I think an argument could be made that I deserve some four star
reviews. I definitely deserve three star reviews. I am not trying to be humble or a martyr.
I THINK MY BOOKS ARE PRETTY DAMN GOOD. But "pretty damn good" is not the way I
would describe All The Pretty Horses - it would be more along the lines of
"absolutely brilliant." And All the Pretty Horses isn't as good as
a lot of books I've read. So, I shouldn't even give IT five stars, dig? It's hard, but
that means we need to think about it more, not less. And we need to stop
pointing fingers unless we point them at the person we see in the mirror as
well.
Writers and readers have screwed this up. Go look up the
best book you've ever read and look at how many stars it has. I bet you'll be
surprised. A bunch of folks thought it was a pile of crap.
I am not trying to convince you NOT to buy my books (please
do!), but I AM saying that those books deserve 3 or 4 stars. The problem is
that we've broken the system to the point where people see a three star review
and assume the book must suck. But if we can't trust the good reviews or the
bad reviews, we're stuck. We need HONEST reviews. Writers need them. Readers
need them so they can make rational decisions about how to spend their money and time.
Twilight fever is abating, but how many five star reviews
did that book get? How many five star reviews of Fifty Shades of Grey are
there? I'm not picking on them (not my style, wouldn't be fair). Let's pick on a writer whose work I appreciate:
Hugh Howey. I'm all kinds of jealous of that dude sometimes. I'm also happy for his
success. I wish him more of it, but look at his reviews. Judging by stars
alone, he's as good as Steinbeck. I don't know Hugh personally, but I know
enough about him to think that he's A) a good guy and B) not a totally deluded
narcissist. Something tells me if you asked him who deserves more stars, he'd
go with Steinbeck.
The system is broken, but pointing fingers isn't going to
fix it. Thinking about what those stars really mean might actually set us down
the path to literary redemption. Three stars means a book is good. Four stars
means it's really, really good. I don't know many writers who deserve five star
reviews, myself included.
I'm going to say it one more time: I TOTALLY APPRECIATE THE
REVIEWS I GET. But ... if you love one of my books, please give it four stars. When I
write a five star book, I'll let you know - trust me.
If you want to check out one of my books, go for it. They're
here. Like I said, if I thought they sucked, I wouldn't put my name on them.
They don't suck. But they aren't as good as Cannery Row.
Until we fix this nonsense, it will hurt us all (writers and readers). I'm not
giving any more five star reviews unless the book is outstanding. And I would
encourage everyone to remember that three stars means the book was good. Four
stars means it was great. Five stars means people will still be talking about it
in 200 years.
We've gotten to this weird place where you look at any given
book (written recently) and you see a ton of five star reviews, a few four,
some one star reviews, and VERY FEW IN THE MIDDLE. A good book should have a
lot of three star reviews with some enthusiastic five star reviews and a handful of
"this book didn't suit MY tastes, so it's garbage" one star reviews. It should have some four and two star reviews, too. There's a lot of grey in between the effusive five star salute and the one-fingered one star dismissal. Until we get this straight, book reviews will continue to be meaningless.
This has been your public service rant for the day. Now, I'm
going to work on the third Matt Stark novel and hope it's good enough to get a
BUNCH of four star reviews!
